In message Mon, 14 Apr 1997 07:35:30 -0700 (PDT),
Iwao Kitamura <ikita@st.rim.or.jp> writes:
> As I wrote in 4618, the quantity of value is determined in production as
> the quantity of abstract labor derived from a set of physiological
> expenditures of human power necessary for the production. The key
> problem is the mapping that derives quantity of abstract labor from a
> set of expenditures of human power. I wrote that the mapping is *a
> social process*.
[SNIP]
> The form of the mapping F may change over time according to the change of
> society. But since the change of society is an irreversible process, I'm
> not sure we may add such factors directory into the mapping as
> explanatory variables.
Iwao,
I'm not certain I understand the nature of the social process you have in
mind. I interpret the above statement as some process within the sphere of
production (of products) whereby concrete labours take the form of abstract
labour. On the other hand, your statement *below* seems consistent with the
statement that the social process whereby products are proven to be
commodities, containing not only concrete labour but also abstract labour,
is the successful process of exchange--- ie., that the value is only
potential and putative until that act.
Am I correct in interpreting your argument as describing these two
separate social processes, and in what way is the first (the mapping) a
social process? I don't recall 4618 and so don't know if you have already
answered these questions.
>Market will prove that products have certain quantity of value
> which is already given in production if they are actually purchased. I
> don't see any contradiction with my argument above and the passage of
> Marx Michael L. quoted.
in solidarity,
mike
---------------------------
Michael A. Lebowitz
Economics Department, Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Office: (604) 291-4669; Office fax: (604) 291-5944
Home: (604) 872-0494; Home fax: (604) 872-0485
Lasqueti Island: (250) 333-8810
e-mail: mlebowit@sfu.ca